That's a good point. This information should never have been gathered in the first place. It is an illegitimate public record, and whoever published it should be accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by dldeuce
That's a good point. This information should never have been gathered in the first place. It is an illegitimate public record, and whoever published it should be accountable.Quote:
Originally Posted by dldeuce
I agree that tit-for-tat against people who might not have had anything to do with the "outing" is dumb. However, you've highlighted why what they did was so despicable. The fact that the information was public in the first place puts to lie the notion that the paper did it for any public good. They did not "reveal" anything. Anyone who wanted the information could get it, they just had to get off their duffs and put a bit of effort into it. What the paper did was nothing but, "We don't like guns or gun owners, take this." If they sincerely wanted the public to see this stuff, they could have printed a step-by-step guide rather than allowing any clownboat with access to an internet connection the ability to print up a freaking shopping list complete with addresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiker
If those records were public record(it appears the are) I don't think any law suits will go anywhere..... The real fault lies on the legislators for not including protection of the records for public use as many states have.
I "Liked" this post due to the comment about the fact that the information shouldn't have been collected by the government in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiker
As far as the people working there: This one is a little tougher. At a completely principled level, if people are voluntarily working for a corporation that they know does bad stuff, they're complicit. At a practical level I know that's a much tougher decision, especially in this economy where it may be difficult to get another job that pays the same.
Offended because the message of the risk and threat hits home finally. That's exactly the point of such "outing" of the info. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander, at least when it comes to making irrefutable points on issues that matter. NOW, when media wanks get the idea of blithely publishing such "public" data such as this for all (including criminals) to see, they might begin to think twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiker
This sort of mindless, unethical outing of upstanding people is most definitely one serious problem; and frankly if elected hirelings won't take care of the problem, the People will. Outing such folks who dare to out upstanding people is one of the tools in the arsenal, in such situations. More power to 'em.
Those who would toss out people's full contact info so they're at the mercy of murderers, rapists and robbers, then such folk should have their full contact info put out there in the same way, for all the same reasons, but also for the reason to stiffen their resolve to behave ethically in future, to have some restraint where sanity and rationality are involved, where people's very lives are at stake (in many cases) with the publishing of such data.
You're right, though: the "public" nature of the records is a problem. If the folks in that state don't want such upstanding people outed to the "highest bidder" (or those with least sense of ethics), they should lock it up tightly for use only by warrant in cases of single-person law enforcement actions inquiring about a person.
Bummer your spouse is with Gannett. Perhaps she and others get the clue, now. Perhaps. Then again, given reality, perhaps not. One can only hope.
It's too late to hold anyone accountable after the government is given the power. They already have the power. The people that are accountable are the ones that voted for these politicians who passed these laws. Probably a lot of those people are on the lists that were published.Quote:
Originally Posted by stanislaskasava
What they need to do, instead of hounding the press, is to use all of the outrage to turn the people against the government and against the laws that have taken away their freedom. That's not what's happening. That's not the narrative that's being driven by the media.
IMO............Picket Lines at all GANNETT owned papers would be interesting.
That is quite a insult.....to turds everywhere. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by LynC2
As a journalist and as a firearms owner and private individual, I can appreciate both sides of the coin: the Freedom of Information Act, and the anger stemming from what the Journal News has done.
One must remember what kind of publication the Journal News is: a struggling left-wing publication that's gone through a large number of changes in a short period of time. They have no identity. They have few loyal readers compared to other publications in their region.
And, as we all know, they lack any ethical backbone.
Just because people have access to public records doesn't mean it's morally correct to do what the Journal News did. I can promise you there are members of that newsroom that disagree with what was done, for the obvious reasons, mostly that of safety concern of citizens they're outing. Furthermore, the only reason the Journal News did what they did was to stoke the flames in an attempt to capitalize on the current climate.
And look what happened: They might have gained momentary recognition, but it's not of the best kind. Tables were turned on them as employees' information was made public in a similar way. Now the publication is being investigated as what would basically be an accessory to a crime.
As journalists we have a responsibility to be fair, honest, and proper. Any respectful organization would refrain from doing what the Journal News did, and as you can see, the Journal News seems to be alone in their "crusade."